Monday, 29 June 2015

Brentwood has become the latest diocese to announce dramatic restructuring proposals due to budget shortfalls.The present language of deficits and devolution abounds in the announcement from the diocese, including the news of a number of redundancies resulting from the process.

Localism seems to be another in vogue concept with Brentwood diocese, with many of the functions previously undertaken by diocesan commissions now to be devolved to parish level. The Commissions are to be replaced by three vicariates for education, formation and evangelisation.

It is strange that in an organisation that professes to be so concerned with humanity that it is people that always seem to be the first casualties of these restructuring processes.

The Church has to face it is an institution in decline in Britain and most parts of Europe. The numbers attending mass are down, so income is also reduced. Too many are just walking away finding Church limited to buildings as opposed to people.

The leaders of the Church seem for the most part to be content to be managers of decline, yet there can be another way. The choice is between a Church of maintenance or mission.

The publication of Laudato si offers a real opportunity for the Church to play an active role in combatting climate change. The Church can be an advocate for sustainable living, whilst practicing that approach itself. Why not become beacons of good practice, bringing in sustainable energy systems like solar panels and wind turbines. Parishes could grow food organically, work with others in the local communities on things like recycling and bee conservation projects.

Such moves would see the Church fulfilling its prophetic role of witness and mission. It would also make the Church relevant and vital to all those younger generations who presently walk away at, or not long after, confirmation. They return only when they are seeking to get their own children into a Catholic school.

The seeds of the resurrection of the Church can be seen in some of the present physical and fiscal elements of decline. Take the buildings that are becoming redundant due to falling mass attendances. Why not turn these over to be converted to affordable housing. This would be really contributing to society in a visible way.

It is the way that Church tackles what could be seen as physical decline that also indicates the nature of the Church. All too often it is the accountants holed up in the finance departments of the diocese who make such decisions, believing it is much better to hold onto property until the best price can be attained in the market from a property developer. This is the approach of an asset manager, not the followers of Jesus Christ. Turning property over for affordable housing would be another way in which the Church could be making an act of witness in the world.

A Church truly alive in the spirit of social justice, as outlined by Pope Francis, could make these moves in environment, housing and other social justice areas to become truly relevant and prophetic to our world today. This should be the way forward.

Indeed, we already see this type of thing happening across the country with the central role that churches are playing in the foodbank network. Many foodbanks are based in churches with a disproportionate number of the faithful involved in this work. In some instances church buildings that have become redundant have been redeployed to do this valuable work of charity ministering to the hungry.

There can be real change to make the Church relvant and real for the 21st century. Given such changes, no doubt those numbers leaving would return and there could be a new flowering of Church at the centre of our society. The alternative ofocourse is to continue to manage decline, letting the bean counters set the terms and conditions of change, with a few elderly men continuing to oversee what remains a very large portfolio of real estate. I know which path I would like to follow.*see: indcatholicnews.com - 29/6/2015

Friday, 26 June 2015

The news that Jon Cruddas is part of a new group to set up English Labour (Guardian, 25/6/2015) should surprise no one. The Labour Party is an increasingly unstable coalition of interests spanning from right to left. The Blairite backed Progress group blatantly operates as a party within a party, its standard carrier in the leadership election being Liz Kendall. The left agenda is represented by Jeremy Corbyn. Victory for either of these candidates could signal a split, with the trade unions in particular unlikely to put up with a Kendall led Labour Party. A Corbyn victory could see Progress stalking off to create a new party very much in the way that the SDP did in the 1980s.

Then there are the two candidates most likely to win the leadership contest, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper. Both to a greater or lesser extent seek to bridge the divide, trying to remain in with the two groups and their support bases. They could be called unity candidates, in a similar way to Ed Miliband last time around – whatever the outcome, success for either candidate seems likely to continue the fudge that has enveloped Labour for the past 20 years, torn between its traditional mission of representing working people and a desire to ape the Tory party by becoming a paler shade of blue.

Thursday, 25 June 2015

What we are seeing in Greece is the demolition of democracy in the name of neo-liberalism . The European powers and financial institutions (the IMF) are dictating to a democratically elected government what they will and won’t accept as conditions for debt relief. They will accept austerity measures, like cuts in pensions and public services, that hit the weakest and most vulnerable hardest but not higher taxes on the rich. Sound familiar. The disciples of neo-liberalism are quite brutal, they have no regard for the sanctity of life. In Greece the measures are likely to shorten many lives, just as the same approach here has hit the disabled who have had benefits cut and removed. These policies are costing lives

Wednesday, 24 June 2015

The excellent Papal encyclical Laudato si (Praise be to you) on the environment certainly throws down the gauntlet to seriously tackle climate change.

The encyclical challenges Catholics in particular to address the challenges presented by climate change. So how will this challenge be met?

The signs thus far are not that great, with the responsibility seemingly being passed to CAFOD – the overseas aid agency. Other structures such as the Bishops Conference of England and Wales’s own Catholic Environmental Justice Group, that may have played a role, were long ago disbanded . Some involved in that particular venture believed at the time that there was more than a little climate scepticism alive in the corridors of the BCEW.

What work there has been done on addressing climate change has been largely lay led, via initiatives like the Eco congregations Live Simply Parish Awards. The Columbans Justice Peace and Integrity of Creation team have also played a big role in taking the issue forward, with Ellen Teague a major campaigner and advocate.

The Church though in this country certainly has some way to go if it is to fulfil its role in helping bring about the “cultural revolution” being demanded by the Pope.

At a personal level the Pope seemed to be demanding a total conversion from the consumerist world in which we presently live. He subliminally seemed to question whether climate salvation can actually be achieved within the present capitalist system. The system would have to certainly change dramatically from its present form.

Pope Francis would seem to be calling for the individual conversion of people across the world to live more sustainably and tread more lightly on the earth. But he also seemed to call for Church to be in the vanguard of such change.

At a local level this must mean churches and schools becoming beacons of environmentally sustainable living. This would not mean, in some cases, the weekly attempt to see how many gas guzzling cars can be packed into the limited car parking space at mass. Indeed, parishioners should be dissuaded from the pulpit from driving and flying so much. Something that needs to be taken on by the clergy themselves and dare I say it even those advocates who promulgate the climate change message. There is a real need to walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

It must mean sustainable energy systems. The buildings should be fully insulated, using renewable energy via solar and PV panels. Gardens with crops being grown – where space permits. Interlinking with local environmental initiatives such as those to save bees and recycle. There could be environmental audits to ensure that changes toward sustainable living were being achieved. The parish and schools must become integral parts of the local environmentalecology architecture.

Some of these principles are encaptured in the live simply parish awards but more needs to be done to promote such schemes.

At national level, the encyclical demands the Church intervenes on matters of environmental significance. This would mean, for example, making representations on the recently announced move by government to stop subsidies to onshore wind turbines from next April. The encyclical is far reaching so would require intervention across the board from biodiversity to the world of work.

The Church interventions should be given the same weight of resource and effort as is seen on matters such as abortion and euthanasia. In order for this to happen, the Church would have to build up its environmental resources. The Anglican Church has environmental expertise in every diocese, working to address climate change. The Catholic Church has virtually nothing, indeed, it seemed to be struggling with providing individuals to talk in the media on this encyclical. What is clear is that the lack of resource thus far devoted to the environment by the Catholic Church in England and Wales is testimony to the lack of priority given to the subject generally. Pope Francis’s eloquent clarion call in Laudato Si means that this attitude has to change.

What the encyclical demands is that the Church comes to the forefront in leading the battle to save the planet. This means speaking out on environmentally destructive actions wherever they are seen. It also means becoming a beacon of environmental good practice across the land. The fledgling roots are there for such developments to take off but they need a lot of watering.

Monday, 22 June 2015

Founder
of green energy supplier Ecotricity, Dale Vince, has attacked the “double
standards” at the heart of the government’s energy policy, illustrated by its
decision to cut subsidies to on-shore wind turbines from next April.

Mr
Vince contrasted the way in which subsidies to on shore wind generated energy
have been cut whilst the government has gone out of its way to support the fossil
fuels and fracking industries.

Mr
Vince compared the cutting of subsidies to wind technology on the basis of
saving money and wanting technolgies to stand on their own feet, with the 35
years of new subsidies given to the nuclear industry and billions being
provided for oil and gas to support it against falling energy prices.

The Ecotricity founder quoted an IMF
report that shows Britain subsidising the fossil fuel industry by £30 billion a
year. “That’s £1,000 per household”, compared to the £10 per household subsidy
given to onshore wind energy generation.

Mr Vince contrasted the hostile attitude to
onshore wind energy to the way in which the government is bending over
backwards to help the fracking industry. “Fracking is probably the most
unpopular of all energy sources, planning regulations and property law have
been changed to make it easier, environmental standards have been dropped –
even the requirement to tell someone you intend to frack under their house has
been removed,” said Mr Vince, who pointed out that there has been no local veto
provided on fracking activities. “It’s been promised the most generous tax
regime in the world. These are double standards plain and simple and they show
an incredible bias towards fossil fuels and away from renewables.”

Sunday, 21 June 2015

It seemed like an
early Christmas present when the email came through from Secured Energy Bonds
declaring “It’s time to celebrate.”

The email
continued: “We're very pleased to announce that Energy Bonds succeeded in raising
it's £7.5 million target and is working on many projects, one of which has
already been completed, Sluice Farm.”

The initial response to the offer had been so good that Secured Energy
Bonds plc were promising “new investment opportunities with energy bonds in the
new year.”

That was back in
December 2013, today, the 973 people who invested £7.5 million are asking what
has happened to their money. Administrators Grant Thornton are doing their best
to find out but things are not looking good.

The energy bonds were advertised in the financial
press, offering 6.5% on cash invested over three years.
The investment looked good and secure. The company Secured Energy Bonds plc was
a separate UK incorporated body, which would use the £7.5 million raised to buy
solar panels to put on 22 schools. The investors would receive their 6.5%
return in the main from the feed in tariff payments on energy generated.
All good so far, the investor’s money was safe because even if some problem
arose with the company, the assets (ie the panels on the schools) would still
be there raising revenue.
All went well for the first months of the bond, interest was paid on the
quarter, there was even an early bird payment. There were, though, some
concerns among investors that the company were not paying on the payment date
but utilising the clause that allowed them to pay within 15 business days of
that date.

The alarm bells though really started ringing last January, when the fourth
interest payment was not made. There was no response to emails sent to the St
Albans based company, the phone line was dead. A call to Capita, which dealt with
the interest payments, confirmed that interest payments had been suspended.

A bit more digging round the internet revealed that the Australian parent
company, CBD Energy, had gone into administration in November. But no worries
surely the UK incorporated Secured Energy Bonds was separate – the assets must
remain untouched – all £7.5 million of them.

I contacted the Financial Conduct Authority which effectively said nothing to
do with us mate, try the trustee Independent Portfolio Managers (IPM).

IPM were the “security trustee” charged with overseeing investors interests.
Initially, phone and email messages went unanswered before finally IPM
confirmed that SEB had been put into administration. Grant Thornton were
appointed administrators.

If things were not bad enough, with the funds having effectively been siphoned
off to Australia to the parent company CBC Energy, instead of being used on
solar panels in the UK, there was more baffling news to come.

In January, CBD
Energy came out of administration in Australia, having exercised a Deed of
Company Arrangement – this effectively put all the debts into a creditors
trust, with some small payments in the form of dividends possibly coming off of
it. The company meanwhile continues to trade.

There are many questions that the investors want answered, such as just
how can CBD Energy have conducted what appears to be a financial conjuring
trick that has enabled them to go on as though nothing has happened?

Then there is the
question as to what panels were actually fitted to schools and where?

Grant Thornton continue their investigations, with a creditors committee
elected by investors to liaise. MPs have become involved. Representations are
being made to the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman. The 973 investors,
though still remain in the dark, all wanting to know when they are going
to get their money back?

Thursday, 18 June 2015

The assisted dying debate surfaced once again with the well publicised case of Jeffrey Spector, a man terminally ill with cancer, who went to the Dignitas in Switzerland to end his own life.

One of the problems with the debate over assisted dying at the moment is that it seems to be guided by one sensational media story after another. Emotions run high whille cold hard logic comes in a long way behind.
The Spector case raised many of the classic issues — a man with a terminal condition, who stood just to see his life deteriorate and suffer over a number of months if not years before the final release of death. He took the decision not to run that gauntlet of suffering, go to Dignitas and end it all.
The debate here has been about why people like Spector should be forced to leave the country to end their own lives. The campaigning organisation Dignity in Dying has claimed that for every one person going to Dignitas a fortnight, 10 are taking action here behind closed doors. There has also been the scene over recent years of terminally ill people being put through more suffering by the prospect that due to the legal situation in this country their nearest and dearest end up being dragged through the courts after they have gone.
I have to admit from a personal angle my own position on assisted dying has changed over recent years. I witnessed my mother go through years of physical suffering, declaring almost every day she wished she was dead. I remember regularly arguing that there were people worse off than her. My mum’s mind was excellent right up to the end when it came a couple of years ago. However, since her death I have had time to reflect.
Mum underwent a steady physical deterioration over a number of years. She did not have a terminal condition but had had enough. She’d lost most of her sight, hearing and movement.
The lesson of my experience really was to be a little more understanding of those suffering, looking down the barrel of things simply getting worse until that final moment of death comes. It’s not a great quality of life. It is some of these reflections that make me believe that the type of proposals being made by Lord Falconer’s bill maybe should come onto the statute books in this country. People should not be forced to go to Switzerland to end their lives. There has been the claim made that assisted suicide should not just be for the rich.
Falconer’s proposals stipulate that the person must be terminally ill, with six months of life left. They must be of sound mind. Two doctors would be needed to certify the case and there has to be judicial oversight. The proposal sounds humane and limited.The assisted dying terrain is of course dominated by potential pitfalls. There is the slippery slope argument that once assisted dying is conceded the conditionality will be loosened. So six months will become a longer period, the doctor stipulation reduced and judicial oversight removed.
Doctors will object. Many rightly claim they came into medicine to save, not take, lives.
Then there is the economic argument that has always concerned me, namely that once assisted dying is on the statute book, pressure on NHS resources and staff will contribute to making euthanasia the default position for the sick and dying.
What of the elderly person alone in the hospital bed, without family or friends to fight their corner. Or alternatively, the elderly person in the hospital bed surrounded by greedy relatives just wanting the person to die so that they can get their hands on his or her wealth.
There is also the background concern of a country that increasingly seems to know the price of everything and the value of nothing. This approach can be extended to matters of life and death. There is already the sight of old being pitched against young in terms of who has the houses, the wealth etc. People who do not serve the great capitalist machine in some visible way tend to be regarded as easily disposable. It could be argued that there is a creeping sense of eugenics about much of what informs public policy in areas like health and social care at the moment.
These are all valid concerns when it comes to making changes on the matters of assisted dying. What is clear though is that the present situation serves no-one very well. And nor is the debate being taken forward in a particularly sensible or sensitive manner.
On the one side, there are those who seek legalisation of euthanasia, using one emotive case after another as it hits the headlines to argue their case. On the other side are those — many religious — who oppose any change in the law no matter what.
What is needed is for some rationality to be brought to the assisted dying debate. Perhaps a Royal Commission or similar body to take evidence over a set period of time, then come up with suggestions as to how things can move forward.
The situation as it stands at the moment does not serve anyone particularly well. It seems like we are creeping toward legalising assisted dying but not in a particularly rational or humane way. There should be change but it has to be undertaken after a logical look at the facts and implications. Then maybe the situation can change for the benefit of all.

Monday, 15 June 2015

The Guardian newspaper recently focused
on the ongoing Tory offensive against renewable energy initiatives in general
and wind turbines in particular (Zoe Williams, 13/6/2015). One of the untold stories has been how the
public has responded to the regressive attitude of government to green technology
- this has involved pouring their own money into a number of renewable energy
projects. It is a laudable revolution taking place in the shadows.

However, investors should beware
because this sector is virtually unregulated. Take the ongoing case of Secured
Energy Bonds plc, an allegedly UK based company with an Australian parent, CBD
Energy. The company took £7.5 million off 973 investors allegedly to provide
solar panels on 22 schools. So far, so good, except that CBD Energy
cleared off with most the funds before many panels could be fitted. Secured
Energy Bonds plc has gone into administration.

The regulators in this country have
done virtually nothing to help the 973 investors who now look set to lose their
money. So although renewable energy is an ethical source for investment,
the lack of regulation and possibility of losing all your cash is something to
be born in mind

Thursday, 11 June 2015

The battle to save the Heronwood and Galleon wards at Wanstead Hospital continues. Local people made their views quite clear some time ago with a 5,000 strong petition calling for the retention of the wards and the vital rehabilitation services they provide. The health executives and local politicians though chose to ignore that message.

All that has been evident to the local populace over recent months has been a combination of high handed choreography involving health service executives and councillors seemingly wrangling about just how far away these services can now be located from the people that need them. So first we saw plans to move the service out to King Georges hospital and now even further away into the hinterland of Barking and Havering.

It would seem that the time has come once again for local people to remind those they have elected and those whose salaries they pay that these services must remain at Wanstead Hospital.

There are any number of people who have used these excellent services over recent years who will testify to their quality. It is time for people in the area to stand up as they have done so often in the past and say no to those seeking to cut basic health services from the area. It is also time that certain local councillors and health executives woke up to that fact.

Wednesday, 10 June 2015

The news that the ridiculous “Edstone” idea passed through 10 meetings of the Labour high command says much about how detached the leadership has come from reality. It won’t surprise party members, who are generally treated as a volunteer army to be patronised at will. The succession of patronising missives varied from how to vote (Justine Miliband) to “why haven’t you given us any money recently?”If Labour ever wants to win power again it needs to re-democratise and reconnect to the grassroots. To continue with a careerist-led, detached hierarchical structure that disempowers members and the public alike can only in the long term lead to political oblivion.- Guardian - 10/6/2015

Monday, 8 June 2015

The immediate negative response of those opposed to any form of assisted dying to the reintroduction of Lord (Charles) Falconer’s bill typifies the polarised and emotive nature of the debate thus far.

Following the very full media coverage of the death of Jeffrey Spector, who went to Dignitas in Switzerland to end his life, Lord Falconer announced he would be reintroducing his bill, seeking to provide assistance for terminally ill patients, who have formed an intention to end their life, subject to the approval of two doctors and a high court judge.
The response from Baroness (Sheila) Hollis and opponents of any form of euthanasia was to cry foul, claiming the bill would be a starting point from which the criteria for termination would be expanded.
One of the problems with the debate over assisted dying at the moment is that it seems to be being guided by one sensational media story after another. Emotions run high while cold hard logic runs a long way behind.
My own position on assisted dying has changed over recent years. I witnessed my mother go through years of physical suffering, declaring almost every day she wished she was dead. I remember regularly arguing that there were people worse off than her. My Mum’s mind was excellent right up to the end, when it came, a couple of years ago. However, since her death I have had time to reflect.
Mum underwent a steady physical deterioration over a number of years. She did not have a terminal condition but had had enough. She’d lost most of her sight, hearing and movement.
I learned to be a little more understanding of those suffering, looking down the barrel of things simply getting worse until that final moment of death comes. It’s not a great quality of life.
My experience has made me believe that the type of proposals being made by Lord Falconer’s bill at least deserve a proper debate in the public square. The assisted dying terrain is dominated by potential pitfalls: there is the slippery slope argument, that once assisted dying is conceded the conditionality will be loosened. Doctors will object. Many rightly claim they came into medicine to save, not take, lives.
Then there is the economic argument, that once assisted dying is on the statute book, pressure on NHS resources and staff will contribute to making euthanasia the default position for the sick and dying. What of the elderly person alone in the hospital bed, without family or friends to fight their corner? Or the elderly person in the hospital bed surrounded by greedy relatives who want to get their hands on his or her wealth?
These are all valid concerns: what is clear is that the present situation serves no one very well. What is needed is for some rationality to be brought to the assisted dying debate. Perhaps a Royal Commission or similar body to take evidence over a set period of time, then come up with suggestions as to how things can move forward. It seems like we are creeping toward legalising assisted dying but not in a rational way. There should be change - but it has to be undertaken after a logical look at the facts and implications. Then maybe the situation can change for the benefit of all.

Sunday, 7 June 2015

The
reader is left in no doubt what the answer is to the question posed in the
title, come the end of this engrossing book. The answer is very corrupt,
bordering in fact on bandit status.

David
Whyte has expertly brought together 14 different sharply written essays
covering the vast span of the corruption eroding life in the UK and beyond. The
starting point for the book came with a conference held in Liverpool on May 10,
2013 titled How corrupt is Britain. It was the contributions on that day that
began the process that led to the book.

The
unique element of the book is in exposing institutional corruption in such a
broad span of public life. So it starts with an examination of neo-liberalism.
This exposes how the private sector has virtually taken over the public, with a
revolving door operating between the two. A whole new moral compass being
established that judges everything according to the market.

Police
corruption is the next area examined. So there is the exposure of the gross
corruption that involved the likes of the West Midlands Police, which had
already been mired in controversy over its handling of the Birmingham pub
bombings in the 1970s, somehow finishing up playing a major role in covering up
the corruption of the South Yorkshire police in relation to what happened at
Hillsborough in 1989.

There is
exposure of the totally ineffectual nature of bodies like the Independent
Police Complaints Commission, largely staffed with former and serving police officers
in bringing about any justice. The separate chapters written by different
writers move from Hillsborough to the murder of Stephen Lawrence and finally
the death of Mark Duggan – shot by police in 2011.

There is
then a section of four chapters on the corruption of government and institutions,
encompassing the role played by the British state in torture in Northern
Ireland and beyond, institutional child abuse and the operation of the Private
Finance Initiative.

The final
section deals with corruption in finance and the corporate sector, looking at how
the banks have got away with huge corruption both in the UK and through the tax
haven networks. The different chapters are well written, punctuated with facts that
bring you up short, such as that the mis-selling of private pensions costing
individuals £11 billion-“dwarfing the costs of almost all estimates of all
forms of ‘street’ crime put together.”

Author
Steve Tombs chronicles how the banks defrauded people of billions over private
pensions, endowment schemes linked to morgages and the PPI scandals. Then quietely
reminds the reader that these corrupt practices were undertaken by the retail
side of the banks, the part that there has been the great focus on separating off
from the investment (casino style) banking that is credited with causing the
financial crisis of 2008.

The
tendency with such a book could be to just drive the reader away to bury their
head under a pillow but the different chapters from separate authors help the
book retain a refreshing sharpness. David Whyte deserves great credit for the
way he has brought these different aspects of the corruption picture together
into a coherent narrative. He outlines that narrative in the introduction, which
effectively summarises all of the parts that come in the chapters that follow. It
is a broad span of corrupt practices found in almost all elements of public and
private life in the UK today. Arguably there are other areas that would also
warrant a chapter, such as phone tapping by the newspapers and the corruption
of MPs expenses. However, overall this is an excellent if disturbing read that
exposes they hypocrisy of a country that so often likes to portray itself as
some sort of beacon of probity in a corrupt world.

* Published by Pluto Press £16.99Review - Not as nice as we say we are - Tablet - published 6/6/2015

Saturday, 6 June 2015

The news is out that Charles Kennedy’s death was caused
be alcoholism – cue public debate on
alcoholism.

We’ll leave aside here the ludicrous situation,
whereby a social problem only gets discussed when it effects someone in the
public eye. Anonymous people can die alone from alcoholism on park benches,
bedsits and hospital beds and it attracts no media coverage at all but that is
how society is ordered here.

The present debate on alcoholism is another that
seems to be attracting a lot of heat but little light.

Why is it in this country that addressing such a
problem almost immediately reduces to moves to restrict the freedoms of the
mass of people.Take the Newsnight debate
last night, Clare Fox rightly argued that there was a major difference between
social drinking and alcoholism – they are not two sides of the same coin.

The media debate such as it is on the subject of
alcohol is the same as it is on so many other areas of public life. Take a
skewed view as a result of giving some interest groups, with employees to pay, a
disproportionate say in the debate. The result, we end up with a restrictive/
punitive solution. In the case of alcohol this will mean higher prices for
everyone and ideally some way of locking people up more easily for drink
related activities.

Would it not be more useful to actually look at the
problem in a different way. Alcoholism is growing but why? Depression is a huge
problem, look at the number of people on anti-depressants in the UK. Mental
health problems generally are growing incredibly – there is predicted to be a
mental health explosion over the next 10 years. Maybe UK plc really is not a
very happy place?

Should we not be looking at the society being
created that is incubating these problems. A society of low paid insecure work
probably contributes. A consumer based society that knows the cost of
everything and the value of nothing – individuals are increasingly judged on
what they have rather than what they are. A society where more and more people
live alone, where traditional community links are breaking down. The
psychological as opposed to physical draw bridges are being pulled up
everywhere.

A society undergoing a huge physiological change as
a result of the internet revolution – changes that no one seems interested in
discussing.

It is the society that has been created that leads
to problems like alcoholism, depression and other mental health issues. It is
this wider debate that needs to be had, not the usual ill-informed rantings
about restrictions and punishment.

Friday, 5 June 2015

The vista of Lord Julian Fellowes on Strictly Come Dancing and Boris Johnson hosting Top Gear were just a couple of the possibilities conjured up for future TV schedules by Alan Yentob.
Delivering the British Journalism Review sponsored Charles Wheeler lecture, BBC Creative Director, Yentob told how Fellowes had been critical of Strictly Come Dancing, prompting a challenge to the writer of Downton Abbey to "get his dancing shoes on."
Then in debate, responding to a challenge from Boris Johnson as to "who's taking over from Clarkson," Yentob asked: "are you available Boris?"
The BBC creative director defended the value that the corporation offered in "underpinning creative life in Britain" warning that people will miss the BBC if it is not there.

Wednesday, 3 June 2015

The West Ham season can be season
up as what might of beens. Fourth at Christmas , the club then entered into
faltering run that saw just three wins secured on the way to a final 12th
place in the Premership.

Manager Sam Allardyce paid the
price, with virtually instant dismissal on the whistle of the final game
against Newcastle. The rumours had been growing over the months that Allardyce
was for the chop, so when it came the news was a bit of an anti-climax.

The manager had effectively been
on probation since last August, when the club grudgingly gave him another one
year contract, the conditionality being that he secure a top 10 finish playing
attractive football.

Top players were provided: Aaron
Cresswell from Ipswich, Cheikou Kouyate from Anderlecht, Enner Valencia from Mexican
club Pachuca and Diafra Sakho from Metz. Alex Song, Carl Jenkinson and Morgan Amalfitano
were taken on loan for the season. All went well up to Christmas. Song was
pulling the strings, Sakho scoring the goals in an exciting new partnership up
front with Valencia. Stewart Downing was rejuvenated in a new freer role to
roam at the head of the diamond formation. At the back Cresswell and Jenkinson
were a revelation, attacking down the flanks whenever possible.

After Christmas though it all
fell apart. There had been high hopes of an FA Cup run but this crashed to a
halt at West Brom in the fifth round. League form was no better, with just
three wins after New Years Day.

Allardyce became particularly
frustrated at his side’s consistent ability to grab defeat from the jaws of
victory. Post match, he repeatedly cited the games at home to Manchester United
and Everton and away to Spurs and Leicester, when the team were undone by goals
in the last couple of minutes. He put this down to inexperience of some playing
in their first season of the Premier League. Maybe so but the uncertainty
around his own position can hardly have helped matters.

The constant speculation must
have effected team morale and results. Without the speculation, could West Ham
have finished two or three positions higher?

What does seem clear is that
there were those who wanted Allardyce out whatever, maybe only securing
Champions League football would have saved his job, what is for sure is that 12th
wouldn’t.

Now, it is a new era, the
speculation has begun over who will replace Allardyce, with former player
Slavan Bilic a hot favourite. The fans will be hoping for better results and
more entertainment. The sight of more homegrown talent. They will hope for a
change of style from the game of aerial bombardment that often typified Allardyce
teams. What they won’t want is a relegation struggle. It is a sobering thought
that former Allardyce teams Newcastle, Blackburn and Bolton have all been in
relegation trouble shortly after his departure – not something that West Ham or
their owners will want on the eve of the move to the Olympic stadium.